Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

"A credible alternative to Obamacare must start with a plan to address the issue of preexisting conditions... That strikes most Americans as fundamentally unfair... New regulations, recommended federally but implemented by the states, could give Americans new protections if they stay continuously insured."

In other words, leave the unfairness in place.

"There's no reason why Americans who get their insurance through their employer should get a tax break, while those who buy it on the open market should not. To address this unfairness, a replacement to Obamacare should provide a tax credit to households that don't have access to tax-subsidized, employer-based coverage. Such a credit should be equal to about $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families and could only be used to offset the costs of health insurance premiums or deposited into a health savings account."

We should provide subsidies for people to purchase healthcare if they can't afford it. So, in other words, Obamacare.

"Instead of today's open-ended subsidies, Republicans should champion an approach that substitutes fixed financial support for insurance-a "defined-contribution" model, if you will."

And if costs exceed the fixed subsidy, well that's just tough luck. Hope that $2500 in your HSA covers you when you have a heart attack.

You guys had your chance. You could have negotiated. You could have worked with the President and Democrats to create something good for the country, but you decided it was more important to try and defeat the President politically to the point where you torpedoed ideas that your think tanks came up with and your candidates championed, like Romneycare. Now you're terrified that people will start to see the benefit they get from being able to afford insurance and that will lead them to realize that maybe the Dems aren't so bad after all.

It's not our fault that you decided to be on the wrong side of history.

coeyagi:Fat GOP Guy At Work: "My rates have gone up in the past year! Damn Obamacare!"Me: "They have been going up every year!"Fat GOP Guy at Work: "But this year, my taxes went up too!"Me: "They went back to what they were before Obama was in office."Fat GOP Guy at Work: "I dunno, it sounds like socialism."Me (voice in my head): "Maybe if you and millions of other fat asses weren't so god damn fat our premiums wouldn't be so high to pay for your cardiac treatments. My socialism is keeping you alive, you dumb inbred fat f*ck."

//used to be fat, so it's cool

Mine:FGGAW: "Teachers are socialist scum that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're on the government dole!"Me: "Isn't your wife a public school teacher?"FGGAW: "Yeah, but she's quitting next month to teach at a private schoo.l"Me: "What are you guys going to do for health insurance? I know you don't get any here."

Fast forward two months...FGGAW: "Holy shiat!! Private insurance wants $1600 a month because I'm overweight and my son's on insulin!"Me: "Good thing Obamacare got passed then. Otherwise those pre-existing conditions probably would have kept you from getting any at all."

Bloody William:Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?

Of course not. The one thing the Tea Party proves is that we will likely end how we began: crying, whining, scared of everything around us, not understanding any of it, pooping ourselves in a diaper and hoping it gets changed by someone else.

Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake

Someone's pissed that the left took the GOP's derisive term "Obamacare" and flipped it on them, aren't they.

You mean there's a good likelihood that Obamacare will take us from a patchwork of individual-state requirements around healthcare to a broad, quasi-national standard that'll make private health insurance cheaper and easier to administer and thus lower costs for everyone? THE HORROR.

FTA:Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan-for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.

If I recall correctly, Obama was originally pushing for a public single payer plan. The system defined in the ACA was an alternate proposed by Republicans as a compromise. So I've never really understood why they keep calling it Obamacare when in reality, it is Republicare. And now they want to gut that.

Stile4aly:You guys had your chance. You could have negotiated. You could have worked with the President and Democrats to create something good for the country, but you decided it was more important to try and defeat the President politically to the point where you torpedoed ideas that your think tanks came up with and your candidates championed, like Romneycare. Now you're terrified that people will start to see the benefit they get from being able to afford insurance and that will lead them to realize that maybe the Dems aren't so bad after all.

It's not our fault that you decided to be on the wrong side of history.

You know what would be nice? If instead of, after 5 years, the Republicans had more than conjecture written in the Weekly Stoolward. Oh wait, that's right, Obamacare is pretty much what they've been proposing for years, only the mean black Democrat cuckolded it.

Bloody William:Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?

That was one of the more breathtakingly stupid things my state of Missouri voted for during the last election. All the conservatives really thought they were sticking it to Obama by not allowing for the health exchanges to be set-up by the state. The ballot was written in such a way (by Republicans I might add) that it made it sound like this part of the affordable act was not going to forced on the state if they voted in favor. You actually had to go do your own research on the measure to see that they were handing power back to the federal government if they voted yes.

My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?

cybrwzrd:Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.

Hence the intense GOP outrage at anything remotely resembling a public option.

Bloody William:Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?

For most of those states, this is intentional, they don't feel they can or simply don't want to supply the manpower or assume the bureaucratic responsibility for the exchange programs and feel a national program is in their better interests.

There are a couple of exceptions, like Perry being a douche and trying to use passing the buck to the government to sabotage some other programs, but for the most part the ACA bill has the option to let the feds do it because it was felt that many states would prefer it to be a federal program in the first place. If anything, the "the states can build one instead" was intended to be the alternative for the right-wingers to begin with.

The wife and I have been on MAHealth since she got laid off three years ago. I was self-employed at the time, so MAHealth was the only way we could get affordable health insurance on our own.

The plan we're on is better than any of the employer provided plans we've been on in our lives, the rates are ridiculously reasonable, and when I got hired to teach at the local State Community College a few months back, it was a piece of cake to transition into a different plan based on my new income levels.

Dealing with them on the phone is great, too... Haven't had one problem with our insurance in three years.

If this is how the ACA exchanges are going be, I can't understand what some folks are getting their panties in a bunch over.

The minority is very vocal but it is a minority. I know this is an internet poll but it is mostly votes from fark. When correlated to other sources, it appears reasonably accurate.(click on image to vote in new window).

Oh they thought it through alright. I think they're planning on using it as more political fodder for the whole states rights v. TOTALITARIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT meme that's sprouted up. As a KS resident, most everyone here that bought into Brownback's "line in the sand" took it to mean that Kansas wasn't going to take part in Obamacare at all. The beauty of it all will be the inevitable spin foisted on the knee-jerks when they find out they're subject to the federal exchange: the Obama administration is going against the will of the people and RAMMING SOCIALISM down your throats; you humble folks made it perfectly clear that you didn't want Obamacare in this fair state, but the federal government is forcing you to take part anyways.

Lumpmoose:Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Bloody William:Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?

To be fair, most of those dedicated to killing Obamacare are getting money from insurance companies, so it's in their best interest to ensure that people can't have leverage against them in any form.